WFLY-16950 Provide a test case for testing EJB/HTTP with a load balancer. #16018
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
the
deps-ok
rachmatowicz
force-pushed
the
WFLY-16950
branch
from
58035a2
to
7899bc6
Compare
bstansberry
changed the title
| } finally { | ||
| HttpClientUtils.closeQuietly(response); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rachmatowicz this test just logs which node receives the HTTP request but doesn't really check any specific behavior: e.g. checking two subsequent HTTP requests are handled by the same node
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, that's right. All of these tests were set up to merely observe where the requests were going, and don't really represent validations of correct behavior. I was using it when testing my implementations of the session affinity management. I once I see that the affinity management implementation is working correctly, I will add in the constraints for validating behavior. In particular, if you run the test as is, you will see that the EJB/HTTP implementation does not do what it is supposed to.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've left the test in Draft state for that reason.
| int count = 1; | ||
| for (int i = 0; i < COUNT; ++i) { | ||
| result = slsb.increment(); | ||
| log.info("Called SLSBWithoutFailover: SLSB backend node = " + result.getNode()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rachmatowicz like the testLoadBalancer test, this one just logs what node handles the EJB request, doesn't enforce any behavior; I guess, since we are invoking SLSB, that we expect requests to be load balanced across nodes (no sticky session)
| for (int i = 0; i < COUNT; ++i) { | ||
| result = sfsb.increment(); | ||
| log.infof("Called SFSBWithoutFailover: SFSB value = %s, backend node = %s", result.getValue().intValue(), result.getNode()); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rachmatowicz I guess, since we have SFSB, that sticky session applies here; is that the expected behavior?
| log.infof("Called SFSBAndSLSBWithoutFailover: SFSB value = %s, backend node = %s", sfsbResult.getValue().intValue(), sfsbResult.getNode()); | ||
|
|
||
| slsbResult = slsb.increment(); | ||
| log.infof("Called SFSBAndSLSBWithoutFailover: SLSB backend node = %s", slsbResult.getNode()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rachmatowicz perhaps this test might also cover what's tested in testSLSBWithoutFailover and testSFSBWithoutFailover and we can remove them.... or, maybe, I am missing some detail which differentiates the three of them?
…maTest from wildfly-core
|
@rachmatowicz Needs a rebase... |
This pull request provides a test case for using EJB/HTTP with a load balancer.
For more information, see the issue: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-16950